Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 47 (2015) 844855

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/rser

Energetic and economic performance analyses of photovoltaic,

parabolic trough collector and wind energy systems
for Multan, Pakistan
S.M. Sajed Sadati, Fassahat Ullah Qureshi, Derek Baker n
Sustainable Environment and Energy Systems (SEES), Middle East Technical University, Northern Cyprus Campus (METU NCC), Ankara, Turkey

art ic l e i nf o

a b s t r a c t

Article history:
Received 16 November 2014
Received in revised form
10 February 2015
Accepted 8 March 2015
Available online 31 March 2015

Pakistan is going through a severe energy crisis due to an increasing gap between demand and supply. Its
current energy needs are heavily dependent upon conventional thermal power plants which mainly use
oil and gas. In addition to the economic problems associated with importing oil for Pakistan, the burning of
fossil fuels for the production of electricity releases vast amounts of greenhouse gases. As an alternative to
the current scenario, in this paper the energetic and economic performance of green energy technologies
such as photovoltaic (PV), parabolic trough collector (PTC) with and without storage, and wind energy
systems are analyzed and compared with respect to their potential for electricity generation for the city of
Multan, Pakistan. Each system is designed taking a nominal 10 MWe capacity as a reference. Hourly
meteorological data are used to estimate hourly insolation on a xed PV module and for PTCs with
EastWest and NorthSouth tracking. Results show that PV and PTC systems without storage have
approximately the same output with capacity factors of approximately 20%. The electrical energy output of
the wind turbines was very low with a capacity factor of
2%. PTCs with 7.5 h storage and a solar multiple
of 3.5 showed the best result for electrical energy output with a capacity factor of 46%. A cost analysis is
performed assuming a 30 year lifetime for PV and a 35 year lifetime for PTC. The Levelized Cost of
Electricity (LCOE) is found to be 0.192 USD/kWh for PV systems, 0.273 USD/kWh for PTC systems without
storage, and 0.226 USD/kWh for PTC systems with 7.5 h of storage. The results of the economic study show
that based strictly on economic considerations green energy technologies can be utilized if the
government supports the investment by giving incentives and subsidies.
& 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords:
Photovoltaic
Parabolic trough collectors
Wind energy
Levelized cost of energy
Pakistan

Contents
1.
2.

3.

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 845
Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 848
2.1.
Meteorological model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 848
2.2.
PV energetic model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 848
2.3.
PTC energetic model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 849
2.3.1.
Thermal storage energetic model for PTC system . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 850
2.4.
Wind turbine energetic model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 850
2.5.
Capacity factor model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 851
2.6.
Cost analysis for PTC and PV power plants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 851
2.6.1.
Initial costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 851
2.6.2.
Annual costs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 851
2.6.3.
Financial factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 851
Results and discussion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 851
3.1.
Energetic results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 851
3.2.
Capacity factor results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 853

Correspondence to: Mech. Engr. E-105, Middle East Technical University, 06800 Ankara, Turkey. Tel.: 90 312 210 5217; fax: 90 312 210 2536.
E-mail addresses: sajed.sadati@metu.edu.tr (S.M.S. Sadati), fassahat.qureshi@metu.edu.tr (F.U. Qureshi), dbaker@metu.edu.tr (D. Baker).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2015.03.084
1364-0321/& 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

S.M.S. Sadati et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 47 (2015) 844855

3.3.
Cost analysis results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4. Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Acknowledgment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Nomenclature
total area of photovoltaic solar plant (m2)
total area of CSP solar power plant (m2)
parabolic trough collector area (m2)
electrical energy output (Wh)
maximum electrical energy output of PTC system
annual energy output (Wh)
annual fuel cost (USD)
standard photovoltaic reference irradiation (W m  2)
initial investment (USD)
beam insolation normal to the mirror (Wh m  2)
hourly insolation in the orientation of solar panel
(Wh m  2)
LSCA
length of a single solar collector assembly (m)
Lspacing length of spacing between troughs (m)
Ms
solar multiple (dimensionless)
Mt
annual maintenance cost (USD)
P installed rated power capacity of the power plant (MW)
2
P max
output;A 1 maximum output of the model with A 1 m (W)
PR
performance ratio
Qcoll
thermal
energy
collected
by
the
trough
collectors (Wh)
QHE
thermal energy available for heat engine (Wh)
Q max
maximum thermal energy capacity of heat
HE
engine (Wh)
Q max
storage size in units of energy (Wh)
stor
Qstored
thermal energy stored (Wh)
Un
friction velocity (m s  1)
Uz
wind speed at an elevation of z meters (m s  1)
W
collector aperture width (m)
Weff
effective width of mirror aperture (m)
Z
elevation (m)
Z0
roughness length (m)
A
A0
Acoll
E
Emax
ptc
Et
Ft
Gstd
I
Ib,n
IPV

f
k
n
r
t
t stor

845

853
854
854
854

focal length of collectors (m)

universal von Krmn constant
lifetime of power plant (years)
discount rate
number of the years in LCOE calculation
storage size in hours (h)

Indices
AEDB
CF
CSP
DNI
EW
IEA
IRENA
LCOE
NREL
NS
PTC
PV
TES
TMY

Alternative Energy Development Board

capacity factor
concentrating solar power
direct normal insolation (kWh m  2 day  1)
east west
International Energy Agency
International Renewable Energy Agency
Levelized Cost of Electricity (USD/kWh)
National Renewable Energy Laboratory
north south
parabolic trough collector
photovoltaic
thermal energy storage
typical meteorological year

Greek letters

HE
P
total
st

efciency of heat engine

solar cell efciency
total efciency of the PTC system
efciency of thermal energy storage systems
angle of incidence (radians)
solar zenith angle (radians)

1. Introduction
Renewable energy technologies are playing an increasingly
important role in the sustainable development and well-being of
states as fossil fuel resources are being depleted throughout the
world. Wind and solar energy resources are considered to be two
of the most important sustainable energy resources in the world
[1]. The worldwide growing demand for sustainable energy has
been investigated in a large number of studies [26]. The global
growth trend of renewable energy technologies in 2011 was
explored in [7] by Awan et al., and according to it the largest
growth rate is for PV which is 74% followed by Concentrated Solar
Power (CSP) with 35%, solar water heating with 27%, wind power
technology with 20% and then biodiesel with 16%. Other renewable technologies have a growth rate which is less than 3%. The
present share of renewable energy sources in power generation
was only 5% in 2011 as shown in Fig. 1. According to this gure, the
largest share in global power generation scenario is from fossil
fuels and nuclear which are contributing 77.9%, followed by

Fig. 1. Global share of resources in electrical power generation. Adapted from [8].

846

S.M.S. Sadati et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 47 (2015) 844855

Fig. 2. Share of resources in electrical power generation, Pakistan. Adapted from

[16].

hydropower (15.3%). The nite amount of conventional sources of

energy and the environmental impacts of these sources are two of
the main issues that make them unsustainable and undesirable in
terms of being friendly to the environment [6]. The problem of
global warming and climate change is associated with the emission of greenhouse gases, especially CO2 emissions from the
combustion of fossil fuels [6].
On the other hand, Zeb et al. [9] identied that one of the main
causes for environmental degradation, food crisis and biodiversity
loss is the distribution of wealth where the central emphasis is
placed on investment in non-renewable sources of energy thus
boosting the brown economy instead of the green economy.
The results of this study emphasis the positive social impacts of
investment on renewable energy technologies in order to achieve
sustainable development and discourage brown growth which
relies heavily on fossil fuels and does not consider the negative
side effects that economic production and consumption have on
the environment [10].
In terms of green technologies, the main renewable sources of
electricity are solar (concentrating solar power (CSP) plants and
photovoltaic (PV) plants), wind, geothermal, bio-fuels and hydro
[3,6]. As a sign of the current efforts to increase the contribution of
renewable energies to the energy mix, the road map for future
solar energy production by the United States Department of
Energy envisions the increase in solar energy usage and decrease
in solar technology costs through SunShot targets [11,12].
As a developing country, Pakistan is an energy decient
country and although it has abundant renewable energy resources,
the share of these resources is very low in the overall energy mix
of the country [13]. The major sources of energy which contribute
to the overall energy mix of the country are oil and gas [14].
Recognizing the importance of alternative energy sources, the
government of Pakistan created an Alternative Energy Development Board (AEDB)1 in order to encourage the green economy by
implementing policies, projects and programs in alternative
energy resources to support the sustainable social and economic
growth of the country [15].
Khalil et al. [16] investigated the correlation between the
energy supply and demand in Pakistan and reviewed different
cities of Pakistan where renewable energy technologies can be
deployed. In Pakistan the total installed capacity is currently

21 GW. The actual electric power generation remains restricted

between 9 GW and 13 GW since the hydropower is seasonal and
not available in winter and also some independent power plants,
which operate on oil, face fuel shortages throughout the year [17].
Nevertheless, the actual demand varies between 16 GW to 19 GW
[18]. As a result, Pakistan is facing electricity load shedding crises
these days. Fig. 2 shows the share of all energy resources in
electricity production in Pakistan and indicates that where oil and
gas are playing a dominant role and despite of having good
potential of wind and solar their share is negligible.
Solar and wind energy resources in Pakistan have been broadly
studied by several researchers [19]. Asif [20] presented sustainable
energy options and discussed the signicance of both solar and
wind energy potential in Pakistan. Mirza et al. [21] discussed the
status and outlook of solar energy use in Pakistan and concluded
that the initial high capital cost is the main barrier to exploitation
of solar energy technologies. Sahir et al. [19] analyzed renewable
energy resource potentials and identied barriers to their signicant utilization in Pakistan. Ullah et al. [22] reported that Jacobabad, Pakistan, has high solar resources and carried out a feasibility
analysis for installing Stirling dish solar power plants in this
region. It was concluded that it is feasible to install such systems
in Jacobabad, as the insolation is suitable for a solar power plant.
Khalid and Junaidi [23] investigated the feasibility of a PV power
plant for the city Quetta, which is in one of the best regions in
Pakistan in terms of having available solar resources. The average
solar radiation in Quetta is 2023 kWh m  2 year  1 and the analysis
performed by the software RETScreen shows the comparative
results for xed, one axis tracking and two axis tracking PV
systems. The results of the analysis indicate that the cheapest
electricity is achieved using one axis tracking system with an LCOE
of 0.157 USD/kWh.
The efciency and performance of PV and PTC systems depend
upon the solar resources at a certain location. Pakistan is a rich
country in terms of solar resources and the mean global insolation
on a horizontal surface is between 1.9 and 2.3 MWh m  2 year  1
[24]. Fig. 3 shows the annual Direct Normal Insolation (DNI) map
of Pakistan which identies that the Baluchistan province of
Pakistan is especially rich in solar resources. Several programs like
the solar village electrication program have been initiated and
about 3000 solar home systems have been installed in about 49
villages of Tharparkar in the Sind province [25]. Pakistan has
several institutions working to deploy solar energy projects. The
import of solar panels and solar water heaters are being encouraged by the Government of Pakistan to encourage Alternative
Energy Resources usage [26,27]. To promote the usage of solar PV
energy systems in the country, 500 houses, mosques, and schools
and 265-street/garden lights were successfully electried by 300
solar PV systems with a total capacity of 100 kW by the Pakistan
council of Renewable and Electrical Energy [25]. Pakistan is also
encouraging private sector industries such as Nizam Energy2, Solar
Systems Pakistan3, etc. to sell solar panels for domestic, industrial
and agricultural use in the country. In order to encourage the
deployment of solar power plants in Pakistan, the local government of Sindh, Pakistan, recently signed a Memorandum of
Understanding with the German company AzurSolar to build a
50 MWe solar power plant at Dhabeji, Thatta District. As a rst
step, the company has set up a 60 kW solar power station to
provide free electricity to the villages, schools and basic health
centers of Badin [22]. Furthermore, as of 2013, 341 MWe of solar
energy projects were undergoing feasibility and assessment

2
1

AEDB website: http://www.aedb.org/Main.htm.

http://www.nizamsolar.com/.
http://www.solarsystemspk.com/.

S.M.S. Sadati et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 47 (2015) 844855

Fig. 3. Annual direct normal solar radiation map, Pakistan [29].

Fig. 4. Annual average wind speed map at 50 m, Pakistan [29].

847

848

S.M.S. Sadati et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 47 (2015) 844855

studies, and these could be completed by 2015 if they are deemed

feasible [28].
The wind map of the country (Fig. 4) shows that coastal areas of
Sind and some parts of Baluchistan are very rich in wind resources.
Currently, one wind energy project which has a gross capacity of
50 MWe has been completed by Fauji Fertilizer Company, and has
been providing electricity to the national grid since December
2010. Another project has been completed by the Turkish company
Zorlu Energy Ltd., which has 56.3 MWe capacity [27]. Farooqui [30]
carried out a survey on renewable energy resources in Pakistan
and predicted that Pakistan has the ability to generate 50 GWe
from wind by 2030. The largest feasible wind power potential in
Pakistan is in the GharoKeti Bandar wind corridor with 44 GWe of
gross resources and 11 GWe of available potential with 25%
average capacity factor. The Alternative Energy and Development
Board (AEDB) of Pakistan in collaboration with the United Nations
development program installed wind masts in the GharoKeti
Bandar wind corridor to measure wind speeds [24].
In summary, several studies exist in the literature analyzing the
potential for solar and wind in Pakistan at the national level.
However, no study could be found in the literature integrating solar
and wind electrical energy output performance with cost analyses
for any specic region in Pakistan using hourly meteorological data.
Therefore, the primary objective of this paper is to analyze the
energetic and economic performance of PV, PTC and wind technologies for Multan in the Punjab province of Pakistan. Multan has 5 to
5.5 kWh m  2 day  1 average direct normal insolation solar
resources [29]. Additionally, only six stations in Pakistan measure
global horizontal solar radiation [22], one of these stations is in
Multan, and these solar radiation data are very important for the
design of PV and PTC systems [31]. Multans wind resources are
very low compared to solar resources. However, for completeness in
establishing a comprehensive methodology that can be applied to
other regions in Pakistan and other locations globally, the feasibility
of wind technology in Multan is also analyzed in the current study.
Models appropriate for initial feasibility studies and preliminary
design purposes for PV, PTC, and wind power plants are used herein.
The models are presented in sufcient detail that this methodology
can easily be applied to other locations. The results of these three
models are compared based on the performance of the system and
cost of the produced electricity, and conclusions are drawn.

2. Methodology
In this section the methodologies for modeling the energetic
and economic performance of PV, PTC, and wind turbine systems
are presented. These methodologies are general and can easily be
adopted or adapted for similar studies of other locations. The
results from the application of these models to Multan, Pakistan,
are presented in Section 3.

DNI values of
1800 kWh m  2. Therefore the NREL data are used in
this analysis as a rst and best case scenario. TMY data sets contain
both DNI and diffuse horizontal insolation, which can be used to
estimate insolation on a surface with any arbitrary xed or tracking
orientation [32]. Solar resources for four characteristic orientations
dened as follows are investigated:
1. Fixed: Surface faces due south and with the tilt that maximizes
the annual solar resources;
2. NS tracking: Tracking in the North-South direction with rotation about a horizontal EastWest axis;
3. EW tracking: Tracking in the EastWest direction with rotation
about a horizontal NorthSouth axis;
4. 2A: 2-axis tracking.
A theoretical limit to solar resources is the extraterrestrial solar
resources that would exist if there was no night for a surface
normal to the sunearth line. Baker et al. [33] dene several
quantities that facilitate interpreting why actual solar resources
are less than this theoretical limit.
Night losses: The decrease in the normal extraterrestrial
resources due to nighttime.
Atmospheric losses: The difference between the extraterrestrial
and total terrestrial (beam diffuse) resources on a normal
surface.
Orientation losses: The difference between the total terrestrial
resources on a normal and surface with arbitrary orientation.
Diffuse resources: The diffuse resources striking a terrestrial
surface with arbitrary orientation.
Beam resources: The beam resources striking a terrestrial surface with arbitrary orientation.
Details for the mathematical model to quantify these losses and
resources are in [33]. Signicantly PV systems can convert both
diffuse and beam solar radiation into electricity. However, since
only beam (but not diffuse) solar radiation can be concentrated,
PTC systems can only convert beam solar radiation into electricity.
Therefore diffuse solar radiation is a resource for PV systems but a
loss for PTC systems, while beam solar radiation is a resource for
both PV and PTC systems.
TMY formatted data also contain hourly wind speed measured
at 10 m above the ground level [34]. These data are used to
estimate the energy output of wind technology assuming that
Vestas V-90 wind turbines will be installed.
A PTC power plant typically has a capacity in the range of 10 to
300 MWe as reported by the International Renewable Energy
Agency (IRENA) [35]. Accordingly, in order to have a comparison
between the performance of PV, PTC and wind systems, in the
current study the capacity for preliminary design of each power
plant is considered to be 10 MWe.

2.1. Meteorological model

2.2. PV energetic model
Meteorological data in Typical Meteorological Year (TMY) format
are used for the Meteorological Model. TMY data sets provide hourly
level meteorological data at a specic location over a typical year,
including insolation, wind speed, and temperature. Two TMY data
sets were considered. The rst set is from the US National Renewable
Energy Laboratory (NREL) [29] and is in the rst generation TMY
format, termed simply TMY. The second was generated by Meteonorm software and is in the second generation TMY format, termed
TMY2. The two data sets yield substantially different annual DNI
values of 1828 kWh m  2 for the NREL data and 1363 kWh m  2 for
the Meteornorm data. To resolve this discrepancy, DNI maps from
both NREL and Meteonorm were consulted and both indicate annual

The objective of the PV Energetic Model is to introduce a

mathematical model to estimate the electricity output of the PV
power plant having a specic installed capacity. The introduced
model is used for the insolation based on the hourly meteorological data of a specic location for three characteristic orientations: (1) xed; (2) EW tracking; and (3) NS tracking. Since PV
panels convert both beam and diffuse insolation to electricity, both
of these resources are considered as the energy input to the PV
panel. In order to simplify the model the shading by terrestrial
objects on the panels during the daylight is assumed to be small
and therefore is neglected.

S.M.S. Sadati et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 47 (2015) 844855

systems for each specic region.

Table 1
Nominal constants and inputs for PV model [36,37].
Variable
Power plant installed capacity
P installed
Total solar panel area
A
Insolation
I PV

E total Acoll I b;n

Value

Units

10

MWe

62,900

m2

From meteorological
data

Wh m  2

PV reference irradiance
Gstd
1000
Solar panel efciency
P
15.9%
Performance ratio coefcient for losses
(P R )
75%
PR
P R includes:
4 Inverter losses
415%
4 Temperature losses
518%
4 DC cables losses
13%
4 Losses weak radiation
37%
4 Losses due to dust, snow
2%

P installed
P Gstd

W m2

A0

HereP installed is the installed capacity of the power plant to be

built. Gstd is the standard PV reference irradiation which is
1000 W m  2 [38,39]. Hence, by using Eq. (1) the panel area
needed for a 10 MWe power plant can be calculated. Assuming
PV panels produced

 by Canadian Solar Company (CS6X-P) with
panel efciency P of 15.9%, the required area is 62,900 m2 for a
10 MWe power plant. Similarly, Khalid et al. estimated a panel area
of 62,112 m2 for a 10 MWe PV plant with a panel efciency of 16.1%
for Quetta, Pakistan [40]. This area is universal (i.e. not location
specic) and any power plant with the same panel efciency and
performance ratio will need the same area to have a 10 MWe
capacity. Eq. (2) is used to calculate the electricity output (E) of the
PV system [36]. The detailed list of input parameters and the
nominal values can be seen in Table 1.
E AIPV p P R

Here total is the total solar to electrical energy efciency, Acoll is

the collector area and I b;n is the beam insolation normal to the
mirror. More detailed PTC system models can be found in



references [33,41]. The overall efciency total is the collector
efciency, calculated in the model, multiplied by the heat engine
thermal efciency. The heat engine efciency is assumed as 34%
[42]. In order to estimate the mirror area needed, the maximum
power output over the course of a year for one unit area of
collector is calculated using the PTC model shown in Eq. (3) [33].
The calculated maximum power output is used to nd the
required area to have a 10 MWe power plant by Eq. (4).

Given TMY formatted data, the PV model calculates the hourly

insolation on these three orientations. The remaining parameters
required to calculate the energy output of the PV power systems


are the area of the PV panels, solar cell efciency P , and the
performance ratio P R . The performance ratio accounts for losses
such as inverter losses, temperature losses, etc. and is an important factor to have a realistic estimation of electricity production.
In Table 1 the list given for P R components covers the most
important losses in a PV power system [36]. In the current study,
P R is taken as 75% based on the losses stated in Table 1 [37]. The
total area of the PV power plant is found using Eq. (1).
A

849

Here I PV is the hourly insolation in the orientation of the

PV panel.
2.3. PTC energetic model
The objective of this section is to introduce the mathematical
model of the PTC system which yields the electrical energy output.
The PTC model used in the current study to estimate the output
electricity is adapted from [33]. The electrical energy produced per
hour by the PTC system (E) is modeled using Eq. (3) [33]. The fact
that PTC system only uses DNI for the generation of electricity, and
not diffuse, limits PTC to sunny locations where beam insolation is
high, hence it is necessary to study the performance of PTC

P installed
P max
output;A 1

Here P installed is the desired installed capacity of the PTC power

plant and P max
output;A 1 is the maximum output of the model with
A1 m2. Another important parameter in calculating the actual
aperture area is the solar multiple M s , which is the ratio of actual
aperture area to the area whose maximum output is the design
input to the power block. For M s 1, the maximum output of the
collectors is equal to the design input of the power block, and for
most hours throughout the year the collectors are undersized with
respect to the power block, which leads to inefciencies in the
power block due to running at part load conditions. For M s 4 1, for
at least some hours during the year the collector eld produces
more thermal output than the nominal input to the power block,
and at these times some of the PTCs may need to be defocused.
The annual energetic and economic performance of a PTC system
can be improved by having M s 4 1. Therefore the actual collector
area Acoll is calculated by multiplying the solar multiple M s and
the calculated area A0 which is shown by Eq. (5).
Acoll M s A0

Typical values for the solar multiple for a PTC system without
and with storage are 1.25 and 3.0, respectively [43]. The calculated
area for a 10 MWe PTC system at Multan is shown in Table 2.
The solar energy collected by PTC are affected by two geometric
loss parameters termed shadow loss and endloss [44]. Shadow
loss typically occurs in the early morning and late evening when
one PTC row shades another, which decreases the PTC energetic
performance. Shadow loss is a function of zenith angle and is
modeled by Eq. (6) [44].


Lspacing
cos z
W


Shadow Loss eff
6

W
W
cos
Here W eff is the effective width of mirror aperture, z is the
solar zenith angle, Lspacing is the length of spacing between the
troughs (taken as 15 m), W is the collector aperture width
(assumed as 6 m [42]), and is the angle of incidence [44]. On
the other hand, endloss is the result of high angle of incidences,
which cause the end of the receiver closest to the sun not to be
irradiated with concentrated solar radiation. The endloss of PTCs is
modeled by Eq. (7) [44].


f tan
Endloss 1 
7
LSCA
Table 2
Solar multiple and Area calculated for 10 MWe PTC system for Multan.
Parameter

Ms

Acoll [m2]

No-storage
7.5 h Storage

1.25
3.50

45,100
126,400

850

S.M.S. Sadati et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 47 (2015) 844855

Fig. 5. The owchart of the thermal energy storage system (TES) model for PTC.

In Eq. (7) f is focal length of collector and LSCA is the length of a

single solar collector assembly. In the current study f is assumed to
be 1.71 m and LSCA is assumed to be 115 m based on [42].
2.3.1. Thermal storage energetic model for PTC system
One of the main advantages of CSP plants is the ability to store
thermal energy cheaply, and therefore it is important to model a
storage system to estimate the overall performance of a PTC
system with storage. As per one of the US National Renewable
Energy Laboratory reports a typical capacity factor for a PTC
system with
7 h storage is about 45% [43]. In order to achieve
this value it is necessary to consider a solar multiple equal to
3.5 for a PTC system having 7.5 h storage. The efciency for a
typical thermal storage system, st , is reported to be 50% [45]. The
thermal energy storage (TES) model is generated based on the
owchart shown in Fig. 5. This model is based on the storage size



in units of energy Q max
and the hourly available energy, and is
stor
run for the whole typical year. The storage size is calculated using
Eq. (8) where t stor is the storage size in hours and HE is the
efciency of the heat engine.
Q max
stor

t stor P installed

HE st

Installing a storage system will increase installation costs,

however the resulting higher capacity factor can compensate for
the higher installed cost which can make installing the storage
system economically feasible in case of having sufcient solar
resources. In the owchart shown in Fig. 5, Q coll is the thermal
energy collected by the collector, Q stor is the energy stored in the
storage system, Q max
stor is the maximum capacity of the storage
system for thermal energy storage, Q HE is the thermal energy
available for the heat engine, Q max
is the maximum thermal
HE
energy capacity of the heat engine, E is the electrical energy
output and Emax
PTC is the maximum capacity of the electrical energy
output of the system.
2.4. Wind turbine energetic model
The wind turbine energetic model is developed assuming a
Vestas V-90 wind turbine. Since the wind speed data in the TMY
formatted meteorological model are measured at 10 m above
ground level rather than at hub height, a correction to these wind

Table 3
Operational data for V-90 wind turbine.
Parameter

Value

Rated power
Cut in speed
Cut out speed
Nominal wind speed
Hub height
Rotor diameter

1.8 MWe
3 m s1
25 m s  1
12 m s  1
105 m
90 m

speed data is made to estimate the wind speed at wind turbine

hub height. Eq. (9) is a model for the wind velocity prole in terms
of elevation Z [46].
Uz



Un
Z
ln
Z0
k

Here U n is the friction velocity, k is a universal constant and Z 0

is the roughness length. Since U n and k are constants for all
elevation values in a specic region, and considering that TMY
wind speed data are measured at 10 m above the ground level
[34], by using Eq. (10) the wind speed at 105 m is estimated.
U 105

U 10 ln105=Z 0
ln10=Z 0

10

In Eq. (10), U 10 is the wind speed at Z 10 m which is obtained

from TMY formatted data and U 105 is the wind speed at Z 105 m.
Due to the lack of the data on the local roughness length value,
different typical values of roughness [46] are considered to
estimate the wind speed at hub height. In this study in order to
justify the comparability of the wind farm with PTC and PV power
plants, six V-90 wind turbines are considered in the farm which
results in a farm with rated capacity of 10.8 MWe. The operational
characteristics of the V-90 wind turbine are shown in Table 3 and
the power output versus wind speed curve for this wind turbine is
shown in Fig. 6. The hub height wind speed data are correlated
with the power versus wind speed characteristic curve of the wind
turbine and the corresponding electrical energy output was
estimated.

S.M.S. Sadati et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 47 (2015) 844855

851

Here I is the initial investment, M t is the annual maintenance

cost, F t is the annual fuel cost, Et is the annual energy produced in
kWh, r is the annual discount rate and n is the lifetime of the
power plant in years. Since this is an initial feasibility study with a
primary goal being to dene directions for more detailed studies,
several simplifying assumptions are made for calculating LCOE and
these are shown in Table 4. It should be noted that all the costs
given in the following sections are based on the 2010 USD.

Fig. 6. Power versus speed curve of V-90 wind turbine.

Table 4
Different components in calculating LCOE for 10 MWe PV and PTC power plants.
Parameter

PV

PTC
No storage 7.5 h Storage

Installed [USD/W]
Land [USD/W]
Maintenance in USD
Discount rate
Insurance of total cost in USD

3.09
0.030
1.5% Of total cost
10%
0.25% Of total cost

4.6
0.024
2%
10%
0.5%

8.7
0.035
2%
10%
0.5%

2.5. Capacity factor model

The capacity factor (CF) of a power plant is the ratio of actual
electricity produced divided by the maximum electricity produced
assuming the plant operates continuously at its installed capacity
over some time period [47] which is shown in Eq. (11). CF is
usually dened on an annual basis.
CF

Actual Energy Output

Installed Energy Capacity

11

In this study, in order to calculate CF, the estimated annual

production which is found from the energetic models in Sections
2.22.4, is divided by the production assuming the plants operate
at their nominal output for the entire year (24 h day  1
 365 days year  1 8760 h year  1).

2.6. Cost analysis for PTC and PV power plants

In order to analyze the cost of the produced electrical energy
the levelized cost of energy (LCOE) is calculated by using the
analytical model for PTC and PV systems proposed by HernandezMoro and Martinez-Duart [48]. Because of the low CF found for the
wind farm for Multan, a cost analysis was not performed for a
wind power plant. LCOE is dened as the cost of energy per unit
output energy of the system during its lifetime. The unit for LCOE
in this study is considered as USD/kWh which can be calculated
using Eq. (12).
I
LCOE

n
P

t1

Et =1 r t

2.6.1.2. Land use cost. A wide range of land use costs from 12 to 60
USD/kW has been reported for PV [48]. In this work both the lower
limit (12 USD/kW) and upper limit (60 USD/kW) of this range have
been analyzed and the change in LCOE due to this difference is less
than 1.5% which means LCOE is not very sensitive to land cost. The
reason is that the installed cost is much more than land cost for
both PTC and PV systems. Therefore as a rst approximation a land
cost of 30 USD/kW is considered in this study for PV. PTC power
plants also have a land use cost of approximately 24 USD/kW [48].
2.6.2. Annual costs
2.6.2.1. Maintenance cost. Maintenance cost is assumed to be 1.5%
of total initial cost for PV and 2% of total initial cost for CSP [48].
These values are also close to the reported values by NREL for PTC
and PV costs [49].
2.6.2.2. Insurance cost. Due to the risks of the investment,
insurance cost is considered to be 0.25% of total capital cost for
PV and 0.5% of total capital cost for PTC [49].
2.6.3. Financial factors
2.6.3.1. Discount rate. Discount rate is one of the important
parameters in nancial studies since it takes the time value of
money and also the investment risks into account. Conservative
assumptions for discount rates given by the International Energy
Agency (IEA) are 10% to 12% for PV and 10% to 15% for CSP systems
(including PTC) [48,50]. In this study the discount rate is
considered as 10%.
2.6.3.2. Lifetime of the system. The reported lifetime for PV systems
is 25 to 30 years and for PTC systems is 30 to 40 years [48]. Hence,
in this study lifetimes of 30 years for PV and 35 years for PTC are
assumed.

3. Results and discussion

3.1. Energetic results

M t F t =1 r t

t1
n
P

2.6.1. Initial costs

2.6.1.1. Installed cost. The initial investment (or total capital cost)
includes system installed cost and land cost. There are several
proposed values available in different reported studies to estimate
system installed costs and land costs [48]. The values vary for
different system designs. Based on the data for PTC power plants
given in [48] installed cost are assumed to be approximately
4.6 USD/W for a power plant which does not have storage. When
installing a storage system and for the same power plant capacity,
more collectors will be needed and consequently the installed cost
will increase. If a storage system of 7.5 h is installed the cost
increases to approximately 8.7 USD/W [43,48]. The installed cost
of a PV power plant is around 3.09 USD/W for an installed capacity
of 10 MWe power plant with one axis tracking [49].

12

The average daily insolation achieved from 2 axis (2A), EW and

NS tracking are shown in Fig. 7 for non-concentrating systems and

852

S.M.S. Sadati et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 47 (2015) 844855

Fig. 10. Endloss for both EW and NS tracking based on TMY formatted data for
Multan, Pakistan.

Fig. 7. Trends in average daily insolation of non-concentrating solar resources

based on TMY formatted data for Multan, Pakistan.

Fig. 11. Insolation contribution for EW tracking based on TMY formatted data for
Multan, Pakistan.
Fig. 8. Trends in average daily insolation for concentrating solar resources based on
TMY formatted data for Multan, Pakistan.

Fig. 9. Orientation loss for both EW and NS tracking based on TMY formatted data
for Multan, Pakistan.

Fig. 8 for concentrating systems. 2A tracking is not applicable for

PTCs and also it is costly so in this study the focus is on EW and NS
tracking.
As it is shown in Figs. 7 and 8 for both concentrating and nonconcentrating solar resources, EW tracking has larger summer and
annual solar resources as compared to NS tracking. This is due to
the fact that overall orientation losses are more in NS tracking as is
shown in Fig. 9. Recall orientation loss is the difference in
insolation received by a surface with 2A tracking (oriented normal

to the sunearth line) and a surface with arbitrary orientation, and

is sometimes referred to as cosine losses. In two axis tracking case
there are no orientation losses since the surface is always normal
to the sunearth line. As presented in Fig. 9, orientation losses are
very low during late April to early August for EW tracking. This is
due to the fact that EW trackings angle of incidence is very small
at this time of the year.
Nonzero incidence angle also causes end losses which are
shown in Fig. 10 for both EW and NS tracking. As presented in
Fig. 10, end losses are low during May to early August for EW
tracking. This is again the result of small angle of incidences for
this time of the year.
In Fig. 11, the solar losses, including night, atmospheric,
orientation, others (containing shadow and end), and resources
including diffuse and beam (concentrating), are presented for EW
tracking. The total height of the bar represents the average daily
extraterrestrial resources assuming no night (i.e. the sun shines
24 h day  1). The decrease in this total height in the summer is due
to the earth being farther from the sun. Orientation loss and
endloss are much less for EW tracking from May to September
because the incidence angle is very small due to the position of
sun with respect to the Earth. In general endloss is very small
compared to other losses. The average daily orientation loss in EW
tracking is approximately 17 times larger than the endloss for the
collector dimensions given in the methodology section. Since
including endloss is only affecting the output electrical energy
by
0.5% and it is subject to change with different collector

S.M.S. Sadati et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 47 (2015) 844855

Fig. 12. Trends in average daily electrical energy output for PTC, PV and wind
turbine for Multan, Pakistan.

853

Fig. 14. Cost of energy in USD/kWh versus the lifetime of the PV, PTC (with and
without storage) systems.

Table 5
LCOE of PV, and PTC with and without storage calculated for their typical lifetime.

Fig. 13. Trends in average daily electrical energy output for a PV system in Multan,
Pakistan. For the tilted surface optimum tilt angle is 211.

System

Lifetime (yrs)

LCOE (2010 USD/kWh)

PV
PTC
PTC 7.5 h storage

30
35
35

0.192
0.273
0.226

average for tilted surface, it is lower than the tracking surface as

expected. The annual average daily energy production by NS
tracking is 4% more than the energy produced by the tilted system.
EW tracking surface generates 10% more electricity than the tilted
system and 6% more than NS tracking system. However, the energy
needed for tracking and maintenance costs are disadvantages of EW
and NS tracking relative to the xed tilted system.
3.2. Capacity factor results

dimensions, in subsequent parts of this study endloss has been

neglected. According to these results EW tracking system is more
preferable for Multan, hence EW tracking should be used.
In Fig. 12 the average daily electricity output for PTC, PV and
wind power plants for Multan, Pakistan is presented. It can be seen
that electrical energy output of EW Tracking systems for both PTC
(no-storage) and PV systems are approximately equal but the wind
energy output is very small as compared to both solar energy
systems. Also correcting the wind speed from 10 m above ground
to hub height using Eq. (10) increases daily average energy output
from 2 MW MWh to 5.4 MWh. This increase in energy output is
due to the fact that wind speed typically increases with altitude
and the correction estimates the wind speed at the center of wind
turbine rotor 105 m above ground level.
The average daily electricity produced by PTC with 7.5 h of
storage is the highest among all. As it is shown in Fig. 12, PV and
PTC systems can be considered feasible for Multan with respect to
electrical energy output. Conversely wind turbines deployment is
not feasible in this region.
Fig. 13 presents the average daily electrical energy output for PV
for each month for the 3-characteristices surfaces for Multan,
Pakistan. The optimum xed tilt angle is calculated to be 211 for
this specic region, which is consistent with an experimental study
made for southern parts of Sindh, Pakistan which reported an
optimum yearly tilt angle of 231 [51]. Between February and
October, the large differences between EW and the other two
characteristic surfaces can be clearly seen in Fig. 13. Especially from
June to August the EW tracking PV system output is signicantly
higher than NS and xed tilted surface. Considering the annual daily

The capacity factor for PV is approximately 19.85% and for PTC is

approximately 20.08% considering shadow losses. If shadow losses
are not considered PTCs capacity factor increases to 20.82%. Moreover, by considering 7.5 h storage the capacity factor for PTC
increases to approximately 45.96%. It is shown that even in the
best case for which the roughness value returns the highest hub
height speed, the wind resources are much less than the solar
resources in Multan. Considering different typical values for ground
roughness [52], the wind energy capacity factor ranges from 1.6% to
2.1% for Multan which is low compared to PV and PTC systems.
3.3. Cost analysis results
The results of cost analysis for PV, PTC with no storage and PTC
with 7.5 h of storage systems are presented in Fig. 14. In Table 5 the
calculated LCOE of the analyzed systems is shown for their typical
lifetime reported in [48]. Although the installed cost is higher for
installing a storage system it does not have a signicant effect on
the LCOE. The reason is the higher capacity factor in case of
installing storage system compensates for the higher cost.
The cost of electricity for a 10 MW PV power plant with one
axis tracking from a study for Quetta [40], which has the highest
solar resources in Pakistan, assuming a discount rate of 9% and an
ination rate of 8% is found to be 0.157 USD/kWh. The main
reasons for this lower cost are the higher availability of solar
resources in Quetta and the difference between the inputs of the
economic analysis model which is mainly discount rate. Using the
same discount rate, which is 9%, the model developed for this

854

S.M.S. Sadati et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 47 (2015) 844855

specically a 5 fold increase in land cost will only increase the

LCOE by
1.5%.
If electrical energy output during non-sunny times is
demanded the PTC with storage seems feasible at the expense of
higher capital cost. However, it is more economical to install PV
systems having lower capacity factor than PTC with storage since
there is a tradeoff between cost and lower electrical energy
output. Although it is necessary to have incentives and subsidies
for deploying green technologies, the higher cost of electricity may
be compensated by improving environmental standards and having an autonomous energy production grid. Recall for the Meteorological Model TMY data from NREL and TMY2 data from
Meteonorm were considered, signicant differences found, the
NREL TMY data were used since they are consistent with DNI maps
from both NREL and Meteonorm. The possible reasons for this
difference in NREL and Meteonorm data should be studied in
future works.
Fig. 15. Average electricity tariff in Pakistan[40,53].

Acknowledgment
study would yield 0.17 USD/kWh for a PV system for Multan.
Nevertheless, the results of the current study support that the PV
installation in Multan, which is not as rich as Quetta in solar
resources, is feasible considering the electricity prices in Pakistan.
The tariff of electricity price in Pakistan has had an increasing
trend since 2005 which is shown in Fig. 15 [40,53]. According to
National Power Policy published by the Government of Pakistan,
the Ministry of Water and Power has estimated the real cost of
delivering a unit of electricity to the end consumer at greater than
0.156 USD/kWh [54]. One of the major reasons for this increase
was the increasing price of oil and fossil fuels, however, due to the
local grid and network problems in Pakistan the government is not
likely to decrease the electricity price as a response to the decrease
in oil prices since late 2014 [54]. On the other hand, since Pakistan
is dependent on the imported oil [17], deploying green energy
technologies will help for having more autonomous energy
production grid as well as preserving the environment of the
country. Accordingly estimating a 0.16 USD/kWh electricity price
for 2015, installing PV, PTC and PTC with storage systems would
need a subsidy of 0.032 USD/kWh, 0.119 USD/kWh and 0.066 USD/
kWh, respectively.

4. Conclusions
In this paper performance analysis for PV, PTC and wind power
plants with 10 MWe capacities is performed with respect to
electrical energy production based on hourly meteorological data
in TMY format for Multan, Pakistan. Due to the low available wind
resources, the electrical energy output of a typical wind system
was found to be very low compared to both PV and PTC systems,
hence wind technology with
2% capacity factor is not recommended for this region. Furthermore, EW tracking shows better
performance than NS tracking for solar resources. On the other
hand, PTC and PV systems are found to be feasible based on the
calculated LCOE. In terms of electrical energy output, PTC with
7.5 h storage shows the best performance with 45.96% capacity
factor. Also PV and PTC with no storage exhibit approximately the
same performance with 19.85% and 20.08% capacity factors,
respectively. With respect to cost analysis, PV shows the best
performance having the LCOE of 0.192 USD/kWh for a 30 year
lifetime. Both PTC with storage and without storage are more
expensive than PV with LCOEs of 0.273 and 0.226 USD/kWh,
respectively. Additionally the land use of PTC systems is more than
PV system for the same installed capacity, but the analysis show
that the sensitivity of LCOE to land cost is very low. More

We would like to thank Mr. Mustafa Karadeniz for his collaborations on the start of this study at Middle East Technical
University, Northern Cyprus Campus.
References
[1] U.S. Energy Information Administration. International energy outlook; 2013.
[2] H Mller-Steinhagen, F Trieb. Concentrating solar power A review of the
technology. Ingenia Inform QR Acad Eng, vol. 18, Stuttgart, Germany, p. 4350,
2004.
[3] Tester JW. Sustainable energy: choosing among options. MIT Press; 2005.
[4] International Energy Agency (IEA). Technology roadmap: concentrating solar
power. OECD Publishing; May 2010.
[5] S Nagl, M Frsch, C Jgemann, MO Bettzge. The economic value of storage in
renewable power systemsthe case of thermal energy storage in concentrating solar plants; 2011.
[6] Evans A, Strezov V, Evans TJ. Assessment of sustainability indicators for
renewable energy technologies. Renewable Sustainable Energy Rev 2009;13
(5):10828.
[7] Awan AB, Khan ZA. Recent progress in renewable energyremedy of energy
crisis in Pakistan. Renewable Sustainable Energy Rev 2014;33:23653.
[8] Awan AB, Khan ZA. Recent progress in renewable energyremedy of energy
crisis in Pakistan. Renewable Sustainable Energy Rev 2014;33:23653.
[9] Zeb R, Salar L, Awan U, Zaman K, Shahbaz M. Causal links between renewable
energy, environmental degradation and economic growth in selected SAARC
countries: progress towards green economy. Renewable Energy 2014;vol.
71:12332.
[10] World Bank. From brown growth to green: the economic benets of climate action,
Available: http://www.worldbank.org/en/news/feature/2013/06/25/growing-gree
n-europe-and-central-asia; 2013 [accessed: 20-Jan-2015].
[11] K Ardani, D Seif, R Margolis, J Morris, C Davidson, S Truitt, R Torbert. Nonhardware (soft) cost-reduction roadmap for residential and small commercial
solar non-hardware (soft) cost-reduction roadmap for residential and small
commercial solar photovoltaics, 20132020, NREL/TP-7A40-59155; 2013.
[12] US Department of Energy (DOE). SunShot vision study; 2012.
[13] Ashraf Chaudhry M, Raza R, Hayat SA. Renewable energy technologies in
Pakistan: prospects and challenges. Renewable Sustainable Energy Rev Aug.
2009;13:165762.
[14] Hydrocarbon Development Institute of Pakistan: Pakistan energy year book;
2012.
[15] Zeb R, Salar L, Awan U, Zaman K, Shahbaz M. Causal links between renewable
energy, environmental degradation and economic growth in selected SAARC
countries: progress towards green economy. Renewable Energy 2014;71:12332.
[16] Khalil HB, Zaidi SJH. Energy crisis and potential of solar energy in Pakistan.
Renewable Sustainable Energy Rev 2014;31:194201.
[17] F Qureshi, SMH Ali, M Fahrioglu. Energy for sustainable development in
Pakistan: energy policy and renewable energy sources; 2014.
[18] Farooqui SZ. Prospects of renewables penetration in the energy mix of
Pakistan. Renewable Sustainable Energy Rev 2014;29:693700.
[19] Sahir MH, Qureshi AH. Assessment of new and renewable energy resources
potential and identication of barriers to their signicant utilization in
Pakistan. Renewable Sustainable Energy Rev Jan. 2008;12(1):2908.
[20] Asif M. Sustainable energy options for Pakistan. Renewable Sustainable Energy
Rev May 2009;13(4):9039.
[21] Mirza UK, Maroto-Valer MM, Ahmad N. Status and outlook of solar energy use
in Pakistan. Renewable Sustainable Energy Rev Dec. 2003;7(6):50114.

S.M.S. Sadati et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 47 (2015) 844855

[22] I Ullah, MG Rasul, A Sohail, M Islam, M Ibrar. Feasibility of a solar thermal

power plant in Pakistan; 2013. p.11025.
[23] Khalid A, Junaidi H. Study of economic viability of photovoltaic electric power
for QuettaPakistan. Renewable Energy 2013;50:2538.
[24] Alternative Energy Development Board Pakistan. Renewable energy in Pakistan: status & trends; 2011.
[25] Government of Pakistan. Pakistan Council for Renewable Energy Technologies
(PCRET), Available: http://pcret.netau.net/; 2012 [accessed: 10-Sep-2014].
[26] Government of Pakistan. Alternative Energy Development Board, Available:
http://www.aedb.org/; 2011 [accessed: 05-Sep-2014].
[27] M. Shoaib, Pakistan Economic Survey 201213; 2013.
[28] Government of Pakistan. National Power Policy; 2013.
[29] National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL). Pakistan resource maps,
Available: http://www.nrel.gov/international/ra_pakistan.html; 2014.
[30] Farooqui SZ. Prospects of renewables penetration in the energy mix of
Pakistan. Renewable Sustainable Energy Rev 2014;29:693700.
[31] Bhutto AW, Bazmi AA, Zahedi G. Greener energy: issues and challenges for
Pakistansolar energy prospective. Renewable Sustainable Energy Rev Jun.
2012;16(5):276280.
[32] Dufe JA, Beckman WA. Solar engineering of thermal processes. John Wiley &
Sons; 2013.
[33] DK. Baker, CC zalevl, S Kaz. Modeling and simulations of a hybrid solargeothermal power plant and its application to 4th year engineering design
courses, vol. 2014, p.812, 2014.
[34] I Mitra, M Davis, R Pasicko. Climate information and renewable energysimplied energy models; 2011.
[35] International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA). Concentrating solar power,
renewable energy technologies: cost analysis series; 2012.
[36] Hirata Y, Tani T. Output variation of photovoltaic modules with. Sol Energy
1995;55(6):4638.
[37] V Fthenakis, E Alsema, Photovoltaics energy payback times, greenhouse gas
emissions and external costs: 2004early 2005 status p.27580, 2006.
[38] ASTM Standard. G173-03, standard tables for reference solar spectral irradiances: direct normal and hemispherical; 2012.
[39] Myers DR, Emery K, Gueymard C. Revising and validating spectral irradiance
reference standards for photovoltaic performance evaluation. J Sol Energy Eng
2004;126(1):567.

855

[40] Khalid A, Junaidi H. Study of economic viability of photovoltaic electric power

for QuettaPakistan. Renewable Energy 2013;50:2538.
[41] Montes MJ, Abnades A, Martnez-Val JM, Valds M. Solar multiple optimization for a solar-only thermal power plant, using oil as heat transfer uid in the
parabolic trough collectors. Sol Energy Dec. 2009;83(12):216576.
[42] Skytrough parabolic trough collector assembly; 2011.
[43] C. Turchi. Parabolic trough reference plant for cost modeling with the solar
advisor model (SAM) (SAM); 2010.
[44] Patnode A. Simulation and performance evaluation of parabolic trough solar
power plants. MSc thesis. University of Wisconsin-Madison; 2006.
[45] Gil A, Medrano M, Martorell I, Lzaro A, Dolado P, Zalba B, Cabeza LF. State of
the art on high temperature thermal energy storage for power generation.
Part 1Concepts, materials and modellization. Renewable Sustainable Energy
Rev 2010;14(1):3155.
[46] Johnson HK. Simple expressions for correcting wind speed data for elevation.
Coast Eng Apr. 1999;36(3):2639.
[47] Izquierdo S, Montas C, Dopazo C, Fueyo N. Analysis of CSP plants for the
denition of energy policies: the inuence on electricity cost of solar multiples, capacity factors and energy storage. Energy Policy Oct. 2010;38
(10):621521.
[48] Hernndez-Moro J, Martnez-Duart JM. Analytical model for solar PV and CSP
electricity costs: present LCOE values and their future evolution. Renewable
Sustainable Energy Rev Apr. 2013;20:11932.
[49] National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL). Cost report cost and performance data for power generation; 2012.
[50] International Energy Agency (IEA). Technology roadmap: solar photovoltaic
energy. OECD Publishing; May 2010.
[51] Farhan S, Tabbassum K, Talpur S, Bux M. Electrical power and energy systems
evaluation of solar energy resources by establishing empirical models for
diffuse solar radiation on tilted surface and analysis for optimum tilt angle for
a prospective location in southern region of Sindh, Pakistan. Int J Electr Power
Energy Syst 2015;64:107380.
[52] Rachele H, Tunick A. Energy balance model for imagery and electromagnetic
propagation. J Appl Meteorol Aug. 1994;33(8):96476.
[53] Government of Pakistan. Lahore Electric Supply Company (LESCO), Available:
http://www.lesco.gov.pk/CustomerServices/3000063.asp; 2013 [accessed: 09-Feb2015].
[54] Governement of Pakistan. National Power Policy; 2013.